This time yesterday, Liberal member Fran Bailey held on to a 32-vote lead in McEwen which, though rapidly diminishing, was calculated by Antony Green to be 77 per cent likely to hold after the few remaining votes were counted. Those votes are now in: the last few absent votes broke 100-93 in favour of Labor’s Rob Mitchell, postals went 37-21 his way, pre-polls favoured him to the tune of 33-23, and further rechecking of booth votes cost Bailey 14 and Mitchell eight. All of which leaves Mitchell seven votes ahead. This is apparently the final result, pending the final recount, which could certainly turn up enough anomalies to overturn a lead as small as this. Adam Carr further argues that with a margin of fewer than 20 votes, “the Liberal Party’s lawyers will be able to scrape up some pretext or another for a court challenge”. He also states: “Unfortunately for Labor, most of the precedents are that the incumbent government loses the subsequent by-election (Nunawading, Mundingburra, Greensborough).”
Mundingburra of course was the Queensland by-election in February 1996 that cost the Goss government the one-seat majority it retained after the 1995 election. The other two are from Carr’s home patch of Victoria. There are probably about five people in the country who can tell you about the 1985 by-election for the state upper house province of Nunawading, and I am not of their number. UPDATE: Scratch that – the result cost the Cain government its short-lived control of the upper house, so probably quite a few people know about it, including me from now on. What’s more, it followed an initial tied result and a win for Labor decided by a draw from a hat. The Greensborough by-election refers not to the one Sherryl Garbutt won in 1989, but rather to the one Poll Bludger commenter Chris Curtis ran in as DLP candidate in 1977, which produced a massive swing to the then Labor opposition. ANOTHER UPDATE: A correction in comments from Brian McKinlay (of McKinlay case fame), who says Carr was in fact referring to yet another by-election for Greensborough which took place in 1973, which saw a Liberal win overturned by the court before being re-confirmed by the electorate. One might respond that the 1996 Lindsay by-election demonstrates that voters do not take kindly to initiators of legal challenges, but perhaps the 5.0 per cent Liberal swing on that occasion had more to do with Labor’s generally poor performance at re-matches than is generally realised.
Anyway, let’s assume now for the sake of argument that this result stands. We now have a new modern standard for close federal electorate results to beat Liberal candidate Ian Viner’s 12-vote win in Stirling in 1974. The historians among you are invited to relate other famous close shaves in comments. We also have Labor on 84 seats and the Coalition on 64, with two independents. This is pleasing from a personal perspective as it’s exactly what I predicted early in the campaign for New Matilda, although I did underestimate Queensland’s contribution to the Labor total. Unfortunately, the day before the election I upped the ante to 87 in a prediction for Crikey, which looked very good on election night but became progressively less good as counting proceeded.
This prediction was highlighted today in The Australian, which has promoted me from confuser of fact with opinion and baser of opinion on ignorance and prejudice to the slightly more elevated title of “pundit”. I suspected at first that The Australian compiled this list as a subtle dig at an online commentariat that had leaned a little too heavily to Labor in its predictions, but that doesn’t explain the inclusion of Malcolm Mackerras. In any case, Brad Norington bails me out in the accompanying article by trying on the line that Labor owes its win to “fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates”. Those of you marvelling over the seven-vote margin in McEwen are invited to consider an election in which the Coalition held on to power after retaining each of Bass, Bennelong, Braddon, Corangamite, Deakin, Flynn, Hasluck, Robertson and Solomon by one solitary vote. On this basis, I hereby declare that my prediction of 87 seats was only out by 595 votes out of 12,350,549. It would in fact be far more accurate to say it was 0.2 per cent out, which isn’t so bad either I suppose.
UPDATE: Adam Carr on historical close results:
In terms of numbers of votes, the closest result in a House of Representatives contest was 1 vote (13,569 to 13,568), when Edwin Kirby (Nationalist) defeated Charles McGrath (ALP) in Ballarat (Vic) in 1919. The result was declared void in 1920. In 1903 Robert Blackwood (FT) defeated John Chanter (Prot) in Riverina (NSW) by 5 votes (4,341 to 4,336). This result was also declared void. The closest result allowed to stand was 7 votes (13,162 to 13,155), when John Lynch (ALP), defeated Hon Alfred Conroy (Lib) in Werriwa (NSW) in 1914. In terms of percentages of the vote, the closest result was Kirby’s voided win in Ballarat in 1919: he polled 50.002% of the vote. The closest result allowed to stand was that in the Griffith (Qld) by-election of 1939, when William Conelan (ALP) defeated Peter McCowan (UAP), after preferences, with 50.007% of the vote. The closest winning margin in recent times has been 50.011%, polled by Ian Viner (Liberal) in Stirling (WA) in 1974 and by Christine Gallus (Liberal) in Hawker (SA) in 1990.
Mitchell has 50.003%, so his percentage is lower than both Conelan’s in 1939, Viner’s in 1974 and Gallus’s in 1990.
664 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 » Show All
Lets not make the mistake that Labor made in 74 with Snedden. Lets hope that Rudd and Co go easy on Horatio Hornet. That way he will stay in the job, blocking sombody with more ability.
gary, exactly Howard’s tactic when Crean was leader.
LTEP,
Labor need the Greens for more than preferences. They need them to get legislation through the Senate, and are going to do so for the foreseeable future.
As far as preferences go, if the process of convergence towards a situation where both Labor and the Libs end up essentially vying for the same place on the centre right continues, preferences may not be something that Labor can take for granted. Sure, the Greens aren’t likely to toss their prefs to a John Howard, but they may to a “small l” liberal party if such an entity should arise from the ashes of the libs current catastrophe and Labor aren’t taking them (the Greens) seriously.
I’m one of the many people who find they sit around the borderline between the Greens and Labor on many issues. If labor shuffle towards the conservative end of the spectrum on a variety of social, economic and ethical issues under Rudd then I suspect that many of us will actually become ‘welded on” to the greens, rather than hopping around the boundary line. Once that occurs prefs won’t flow so steadily or easily to labor . Doesn’t take much of a change for this to affect results when you have situations like McEwen!
Cheers
Rod
LTEP at 445
You can think its nonsense mate but the people concerned did not. And I would have been unhappy to see them not preference Labor.
But their case was that the ALP was not offering a real alternative, whatever the reasons given, wedge or no wedge and I had to persuade them otherwise.
From you:
“This directly feeds into my argument that Labor just needs to position themselves as preferable to the Liberal Party to Greens voters to secure the large bulk of preferences.”
I agree, but the perception of many voters, whatever you and I may think, is that the ALP was skating a very thin line on many issues that led these people to opine that the difference was neglible. Indigenous issues for one example.
You again:
“I still remain of the opinion that if Labor got some sort of deal with one of the larger conservative minor parties they’d effectively squeeze the Coalition out of the contest in a lot of tight-run seats.”
I think you are mistaken.
I think, given some of the vehement feedback in the last Vic election when many ALP supporters withdrew their support [according to the press and I think reports here also] over the possibility of ALP preferences not going to the Greens, that such a deal would be counterproductive for the ALP. Some of the ALP people I know here in SA would have been irate if the FF got a deal with the ALP.
Not all Greens are strongly anti-Liberal, most maybe but not all.
A loss of ten percent of Greens preferences would more than outweigh a posssible larger gain from any conservative minor party. Nationally, at this election, the Greens outvoted FF by nearly 4:1. If the ALP were to prefer FF before the Greens then they would have to be certain of gaining 4 preferences from FF for every Green preference they lose because they have pissed off some swinging Greens. Chuck in some disillusioned ALP ers and the gain would seem to be negligible for much loss in principle. OK the ratio may change from seat to seat but observers are not confined to individual seats, and deals in one area by the ALP can have ramifications outside that area. I’m in SA and was not impressed when I heard rumours [from very high sources within the ALP] that an ALP/FF was being considered in Qld for example.
And my sources were not impressed either, which is why the rumours were about.
I spent 2 months campaigning extremely vigourously for the ALP, if they were ever to prefer a conservative mob [FF for example] in front of the Greens they would lose that effort, not just from me but from many people I know.
They have to be careful playing with people’s ethics.
Family First are NOT to be trusted. Consider the contradictory comments made by Fielding concerning Serfchoices. In the end he voted for it!
And just how many Greens voters unhappy with Labor would be prepared to preference the Liberals instead? Ve-e-e-ry few, I’d suggest (unless they were prepared to adopt the ways of the crazy Left by pinning their hopes on the conservatives to create the conditions for the revolution).
Victorian Senate update
90.28% counted (Votes just added)
Greens still need 0ver 100% of the minor Party Below the line votes to win. 100%+
Game over. Time to concede.
Party Liberal ALP Green Others (BTL) Total Quota
1295235 1287902 378297 36479 2,997,913 428274 49977
43.205% 42.960% 12.619% 1.217% 14.286%
Quotas 3.0243 3.0072 0.8833 0.0852
457 -
Nonsense! Since when do parties who do not win a seat in the Senate “concede”? If so, we’d have a huge influx of concession speeches. You’re just bitter ’cause you’re mate Risstrom was dumped at pre-selection and have been bagging the Greens ever since.
Hey there Melb City
What’s with the Senate concession thing? It don’t happen. Not by convention, not by practice. Have we heard the Lib 4-6 candidates or the ALP 4-6 candidates concede? No! Will we? No!
The most that generally happens is where a sitting Senator misses out and they say “Oh well, it’s was fun while it lasted”
Methinks that you are pounding the concession drum ‘cos you’re after the little frisson of joy you’d get.
Enough already . . .
414
Crikey Whitey
At least Downer shows that he gets it, or most of it at least. The electorate was not focused on the economy, but it was focused on who had new ideas and who sounded like a leader in the climate change business. But if the Malvolio of Mayo couldn’t persuade Howard to leave when it was clear he knew that the old guy had run out of puff, then many Liberals could be rightly p!ssed with him.
As for Howard not giving over to Costello because the latter was rude, well, pull the other one! Rudeness? In politics? From the guy beneath you on the greasy pole?
Who’d ever believe such a thing? (And did Howard never talk about Peacock in the same terms? Sheesh, what a load of it!)
Adam.
An apt description. lol
Old Tom(360): A six member electorate would have a quota of 14.28% (Same as the States half Senate election and a seven member 12.5%… Do not forget the Green buffer “Wasted quota” zone.
and remember the slogan “Think Global Act Local.”
If your in a losing position you need to cry Uncle and concede. John has lost his seat and should concede., the greens have lost the senate and should concede. It is only custom that the winning candidate does not claim the seats until the losing candidate(s) concede. Do not try to rewrite tradition by adding in some caveat that never existed.
Dear Melb City
We’re not ‘trying to rewrite tradition’. We’re just saying that your attempt to create a new tradition in order to assuage your perceived past wounds is inappropriate and misguided. I’ve been looking for records of 327 concession speeches from the unsuccessful Senate candidates. And I can’t find any. They don’t exist. Never have, never will.
I’m not going to waste any more bandwidth on this. Be a good chap and do likewise – it only makes you look bitter and foolish otherwise.
The amount of sulking in this thread was amusing, but is starting to get a bit annoying…
re: ALP/Greens & preferences – both sides would do well to remember that compromise makes a workable partnership. I hope they are more pragmatic than most people in this thread who seem to want to do all the ‘taking’, but not much ‘giving’. I think the Dems actually managed to do this relatively well when they were relevant.
I think it also needs to be pointed out that theoretically, the ALP and the Coalition can band together in the Senate to pass legislation. The power of the minor parties in the Senate is not absolute.
The main issue that most of not all has in common here is that Alex Downer is a totally useless politician and a non asset to the coalition. Here Here. Is she planning on resigning soon or is that just hopeful thinking.
I recall the Labor ’s Jacinta Collins conceding that she had lost the Senate race in 2004.. So I suggest you do more research. Try something other then a comic book .. Its up to the Greens to put the issue to bed by conceding they have no chance in winning a Victorian Senate seat.
Come to think of it Risstrom also made the concession when it became clear that he could not win. … a man of integrity and honor. the seat is beyond contention. Its time…
Oh for fu(k sak… enough already!
462 -
So, the Carers Alliance should concede, the Climate Change Coalition should concede, the Conservatives for Climate & Environment should concede, One Nation should concede, the DLP should concede, Pauline Hanson should concede, Family First should concede, Labor and Liberal should concede on all the Senate seats they didn’t win? That is absolute nonsense, MC! Just so you can gain the smug satisfaction of a Greens concession speech. Interestingly, did you deliver a concession speech when you didn’t get elected to Melb City Council in ‘99?
” It is only custom that the winning candidate does not claim the seats until the losing candidate(s) concede”
I understand that at the election level, it is tradition that the winning leader does not claim victory until the losing leader concedes defeat.
I have asked before whether there is in fact a bona fide custom like this at seat level. Can someone with more knowledge than I confirm or deny this?
470 -
Martin B, the short answer is: No. Have you ever heard of the CEC giving a cncession speech, though they run in most seats and have never won one?
is it just me, or does everyone else automatically skip melbcity’s posts.
stop wasting bandwidth. Your psephological skills are questionable at best. now go away and try and win a seat on melb city coucil (unsuccessfully) again.
The news today is that the Libs are demanding a formal recount in the Division of McEwan, which is their right. A “request” would probably do the trick given the small winning margin, and the AEC will probably comply. A simple numerical recount of the ballot papers could well change the result.
However, the report suggests that the Libs also want to raise various informality questions during the recount. Under section 279B of the Electoral Act, any formality decisions made by the electoral officer at the polling booth, that are contested during the recount, must be referred to the Australian Electoral Officer for the State. There is no certainty that the AEO will make any different decisions to those made by electoral officer at the original scrutiny, unless that electoral officer was completely incompetent, and that’s a long bow to draw. What we can be sure of is that the whole process will be fraught with ugly dissension.
If the recount does not change the result then the Libs should think twice before petitioning the Court of Disputed Returns. If they do happen to win their case and a fresh election is ordered, then the outcome might well be an improved result for the ALP. As the 1996 Lindsay result suggests, voters are unlikely to return a candidate belonging to the party which lost the general election. To put it very simply, where’s the pork in that?
If I can just respond briefly to 222, I am unable to go along with MelbCity’s implication that the AEC has erred, or acted improperly in (”summarily”) removing some people from the roll prior to the election. A roll cleansing drive, done according to proper legal procedures, is not unusual when an election is on the cards, and it should act as an incentive for people to correct their enrolments in the time remaining. If MelbCity is implying some major conspiracy within the AEC to somehow advantage one side (and how does that work anyway?), then I would like to hear some evidence.
And I repeat, as Graeme at 267 has also said, that the roll is conclusive and cannot be questioned in the Court. This is for the obvious reason that the electoral roll is a continously changing document, so it will always contain “errors” at the time of the close of the rolls for an election. Constesting the correctness of the roll would be a never-ending circus, and governments would never be formed, if that were to be allowed.
And Bushfire Bill at 219, with respect, the AEC does not remove people from the roll “because you weren’t home when the man from the AEC called to check”. There is further contact attempted before such action is taken. And while I agree that “working overseas ain’t a crime”, you are supposed to apply for overseas enrolment if you leave the country.
I cannot agree with your general supposition that the AEC is “looking for excuses to cross people off”. More likely, they are just looking for people, and most of the time they do it pretty well, given we are one of the most mobile populations on the planet. In the end, we have an obligation to ensure that our enrolment is current and correct when an election is called, and that is one reason why the Howard Government’s abolition of the seven day grace period for correcting enrolments after the announcement of an election was so wrong.
Who cares whether there is a concession. The count will be done to completion anyway. A concession may have an impact on journalists who write stories, but it is irrelevant to the conduct of the count.
I believe Theo Hetterscheid, who polled four votes in the 1996 NSW Senate contest, the lowest vote ever recorded by a Senate candidate, has yet to concede, which is very rude of him I must say. Maybe he is waiting for late postals.
@ 466 Melb city Says: “I recall the Labor ’s Jacinta Collins conceding that she had lost the Senate race in 2004.”
Yebbut the delectable Jazzy was an incumbent and what she probably said was along the lines of “The rort we cooked up with those happy clappy heretics has gone pear shaped and I won’t be polishing the red leather with my ample ass for much longer. Too bad I’ll pick up a sinecure with the Shoppies, kick a few heads and like my hero MacArthur who knew a thing or two about dealing with stroppy workers, I shall return.” which was cleaned up by some PR flack to read something like “Despite the vigorous and excellent campaign my colleagues and I ran in the recent election, it would appear that the flow of preferences will not be sufficient to achieve three quotas”.
474 -
Thank you, Antony, thank you!
The ABC has a posting on the PM’s plans for open government:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/10/2113965.htm
The first episode of Yes, Minister has a look at open government:
http://www.yes-minister.com/ymseas1a.htm
Lynn and Jay got so many things right. I hope they’re wrong on this one.
For those who care about any politician not conceding any seat before all figures are counted , yous are the only ones upset
The aec declares the final count figures ultimately for every seat anyway
Liberals implode in Canberra:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/10/2114023.htm
and on the front page of the Canberra Times:
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/
act-liberals-in-chaos-mulcahy-now-wants-leader-to-stand-down/1101630.html
Hi everyone. Interesting times over at The Australian. Firstly, the opinion page editor, Tom Switzer, has declared that we are living through “conservative times” and therefore The Australian is obliged to maintain its rabid right-wing slant in its opinion pages:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22895468-5013480,00.html
And then I find that they have reposted an old blog by Henry Thornton dated in October about the government (coalition) facing the possibility of “annihilation”, with a final comment about whether Howard should step down and Costello take over:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/henrythornton/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_struggletown_election_looms/
If ever you needed examples of a newspaper that is living in the past, then these are just some. Couple these with the usual culture war attacks on the “left”, and unfortunately, we have a national newspaper that is written in the 21st century but still with its roots firmly in the 1970s.
They just can’t seem to accept that the world is moving on and has been for a long time. They also need to accept that we have a Labor federal government now – Thornton’s talk about whether Howard should step down are kind of obsolete now.
What was it that Abbott once said about people living in parallel universes?
It’s up to the Australian to decide who their columnists are. The Australian is a right wing newspaper, with a very small (probably right wing) readership, if that is where they want to position themselves, so be it.
re 481
Thanks for this Noocat. That argument is kinda like the set that goes
1) “No you can’t have a payrise because times are tough and we’ll have to lay people off and a recession will happen and the sky will fall in and we’ll all be rooned”; and
2) “No you can’t have a payrise because times are good but if wages rise we’ll have to lay people off and a recession will happen and the sky will fall in and we’ll all be rooned”
Only its
1) “Under a conservative government we have to take a right-biased editorial/opinion direction in order to hold the alternative government accountable so we remain consonant and relevant to general opinion. To do be asked to do otherwise would be to deny reality and abridge free speech. The result will be a distorted leftwing trend flying in the face of a conservative reality and there’ll be a recession, the sky will fall in and we’ll all be rooned.”; and
2) “Under a Labor government we have to take a right-biased editorial/opinion direction in order to hold the government accountable and to remain consonant and relevant to general opinion. To do be asked to do otherwise would be to deny reality and abridge free speech. The result will be a distorted leftwing trend flying in the face of a conservative reality and there’ll be a recession, the sky will fall in and we’ll all be rooned.”
“The news today is that the Libs are demanding a formal recount in the Division of McEwan, which is their right. A “request” would probably do the trick given the small winning margin, and the AEC will probably comply. ”
It is their right to request one, but they have no right to be granted one.
The AEC are quite clear that without valid and specific reasons, requests for a recount should not be granted, and that a small margin is not in itself a valid reason.
406 Glen – so it’s ok to lie?
Any candidate that requests a recount should be obliged to pay for the cost of it. This is standard in any appeal process and it should apply here.
Martin B, you have to pay William’s Bandwidth Fund $10 for writing “McEwan”. You were warned.
William,
I’d like to contribute to your Bandwidth Fund. Can’t use PayPal: can you email me with an alternative?
Dyspnoeia – excellent point. In other words, the conclusion will always be the same, it’s just a matter of which excuse you use to get there.
My problem with The Australian is that they are too concerned with trying to shape opinion – to turn Australia into a conservative stronghold – rather than genuinely reflecting or even understanding current public opinion.
Their analysis of the year-long lead-up to the election was woeful – the worst I have ever seen from a newspaper, including various international ones. They simply missed the point. They displayed no understanding of what was happening in the electorate. I think they genuinely believed that Howard would reign supreme once more. And for the most part, they were simply too busy trying to prop up Howard and the coalition to even bother providing a sound analysis of REALITY.
This is why so many people regard the paper as irrelevant. And yet, Chris Mitchell and clearly Switzer, and probably some of the other monkeys there, still don’t GET IT. They are rapidly becoming an irrelevant bunch of self-appointed elites, but without any intellectual spice.
Postal vote query is its grown by 50% in 2 elections to 6.50% of the total vote
but does this hide an EVEN BIGGER % increase in metropolitan based seats
Martin B, I am not disagreeing with you, but can you provide a link to that?
My recollection is that, under pressure from a parliamentary committee in times past, the AEC announced that a margin of less than 200 votes might be sufficient, on the principle that simple errors can occur in counting 80 to 100,000 votes…
“Martin B, you have to pay William’s Bandwidth Fund $10 for writing “McEwan”. You were warned.”
Oi, it was a cut-and-paste direct quote! I considered a [sic] but thought it would be too smarty pants.
#478
“I think it’s the closed season on open government”
Yes, Minister – still relevent
“In the absence of specifically alleged errors, it is unlikely that a recount would be required at either a House of Representatives or a Senate election, no matter how close the margins in the scrutiny had been. Given the checks and balances in both scrutiny systems, significant sorting errors are highly unlikely to go undetected.”
“A request for a recount that does not plead any valid and specific grounds should be refused.”
http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/scrutineers_handbook/7recounts_disputed_returns.htm
Tom Switzer spend three years at the American Enterprise Institute, and clearly never recovered his sanity:
http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=3643
“…The Australian is a right wing newspaper, with a very small (probably right wing) readership”
It probably has some following in the business sector, but it is also read by a LOT of people who would not be considered right-wing. Just read the comments on their blogs. I would estimate that about 90% are either pro-Labor or pro-Greens.
The Australian is not interested in giving what their readers want. The editors are more concerned with trying to CHANGE the way their readers think. But they fail in this because their readership is actually quite intelligent on average, which just makes them end up looking like fools.
You see, the reason why Switzer felt the need to write an article to justify his decision to maintain a heavy right-wing slant in the opinion pages is because he KNOWS that the readership wants to see more balance. He just doesn’t want to provide what his readers want, hence today’s list of excuses.
Noocat – I agree. As a regular reader of The Australian for a very long time, I was somewhat mystified during the past year that they just weren’t plugged in to what was really going on out there in the community. They were too busy pushing Howard’s barrow to notice but now, with Downer’s revelations that Howard just stopped dead over the past year, it confirms that the Oz spent too much time on opinion shaping and not enough on the real issues. Their masthead says ‘ the Heart of Australia’ – it may be time to change that.
Grace, thanks, that explains a LOT!
Thanks for the clarification Martin B.
Interesting to see how the AEC will respond to the Libs “demand”, under pressure of media scrutiny.
The Australian neo-con gazette has become an irrelevant newspaper that wishes live with the fantasy that Howardism ideology still lives. They would be better served and increase their circulation if they put the Liberal party logo at the top of the page. A nonsense paper which has no opinions relevant to the 21st century or to Australians.
I suspect it is going to take them much longer than John Howard to accept that they too were soundly defeated at the election.
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 » Show All